Niccolo Machiavelli

Yet another one of Leo Strauss’ personal contributions to History of Political Philosophy, his work on Niccolo Machiavelli focuses on what may be perhaps the most controversial philosopher included in the book as well as one of the men most responsible in bringing about the transition from the Medieval to the Modern world. As Strauss notes, Machiavelli can be seen as addressing a central problem in Classical Greek philosophy, how to deal with differing conceptions of the good. As Strauss notes, while Socrates saw virtue as acting good, he fails to take into account differing conceptions of what is good. This has caused the West to be unable to come to rest, a tendency which ultimately caused the birth of the modern world. As Machiavelli was one of the first to deal with this, he can be seen as making a radical break with the past, which has caused some to see him as a precursor for another philosopher to make a radical break with the past, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes is often seen as such as he completely abolishes natural law and also makes the root of human experience the fear of a violent death, a view that does appear to have some similarities to Machiavelli, but the fact is that Hobbes never refers to Machiavelli.

Still, it remains clear that Machiavelli sees justice and ethics as having a far more limited use that had typically been seen before him as both must be kept in check by political realities and power. Adding to this is Machiavelli’s contention that contra many of those that came before him, it is not true that the virtuous man will necessarily be happy. Perhaps not surprising then, for Machiavelli context matters greatly, thus eschewing universal morality. For this reason, Machiavelli contends that a ruler having a reputation for cruelty is far better suited for war than for peace. Machiavelli also attacks the very roots of the idea of virtues. What this means is that virtues such as justice, morality, and legitimacy are ultimately rooted in the opposite concepts, and in order for a regime to have the stability required to have these values, it must do so through injustice, immorality, and revolution. In this way, Machiavelli’s ideas can be seen as being rooted in the ideas of the ancients before they discovered virtue. Under this interpretation of Machiavelli, he is not really making a discovery then, but rather a rediscovery.

Such an interpretation, of Machiavelli attempting to revitalize ancient warrior values also ties into the view of Machiavelli attempting to undertake a pagan revolt against Christianity and reestablish Roman authority, which would also reestablish the authority of Rome’s chief historian, Livy. Machiavelli’s “New Rome” is not to be a mere carbon copy of the original empire, as Machiavelli does recognize Rome fell for a reason, as Machiavelli knows that Rome indeed had problems and was only able to establish many of its customs though trial and error. His New Rome then is to have the advantage of being able to see and understand these mistakes, thus correcting them. Though Machiavelli does show an early form of Italian nationalism here (a fact that Strauss strangely overlooks), it is important to note that Machiavelli, in true Roman tradition, avoids ethnic based nationalism for civic nationalism as he praises Rome for its willingness to bring in foreigners into Roman life, particularly that life of the Roman Republic.

Machiavelli’s sympathy for Greco-Roman paganism can be seen in his contention that religion was the very center of Roman life, a life that he of course deeply admires. He does appear to have an at least somewhat nuanced attitude towards Christianity, as he states that Christianity played some role in helping preserve some of those Classical Roman values. Elsewhere though it becomes clear that he sees the arrival of Christianity as an inferior system that replaced a superior one as he states that religions must replace and destroy one another. With that in mind, he blames Christianity on the decline of the traditional Roman religion. Still, Machiavelli does not see that all the good things about Rome has been destroyed as he has a particularly positive attitude towards the adoption of Latin as the literary language of the West because it helped preserve some Roman literature. Regardless of his attitudes towards Christianity’s replacement of Roman paganism, one of his most important contributions to thought was that for Machiavelli, all religion, including Christianity was of human, rather than heavily origin. What this means is that for Machiavelli, there is no theology but political theology.

Regardless of all of his accomplishments, Machiavelli is still primarily known for his justification of the use of brutal force in politics, to the extent this particular for of politics even bears his name, “Machiavellian.” Though it is true that he did suggest rulers must use blunt force in order to rule, an act that must be done apart for justice, it is important to remember that Machiavelli does not give a blank check for rulers to behave brutally to those they rule, as they should only do what is needed to rule.